list_memories

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions listing keys with optional tag filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all memory keys') and adds qualifying detail ('optionally filtered by tag'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'memory key' entails, the return format, or behavioral aspects like safety or performance. For a tool in a memory management context with multiple siblings, more context is needed to fully understand its role and limitations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and documents the single optional 'tag' parameter clearly. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by tag', aligning with the schema but not providing additional semantics like tag format examples or filtering logic. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('memory keys'), with optional filtering capability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_all_tags' (which lists tags, not memories) and 'search_memory_content' (which searches content, not keys), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'find_memories_within_degrees' or 'find_related_memories' which might also list memories with different filtering logic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing to list memory keys, possibly with tag filtering. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_related_memories' or 'search_memory_content', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.